§

Dona A. v. Soc. Sec. Admin.

EEOC Appeal No. 0120150376 (E.E.O.C. Mar. 29, 2017)
Dona A. v. Soc. Sec. Admin.

7 Cited authorities

  1. Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc.

    530 U.S. 133 (2000)   Cited 21,618 times   22 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a "trier of fact can reasonably infer from the falsity of the explanation that the employer is dissembling to cover up a discriminatory purpose"

  2. Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc.

    510 U.S. 17 (1993)   Cited 12,712 times   23 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "no single factor is required" to show a hostile work environment, including "whether [the acts are] physically threatening"

  3. Faragher v. Boca Raton

    524 U.S. 775 (1998)   Cited 9,514 times   101 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, to be actionable, the alleged conduct "must be extreme" and "the sporadic use of abusive language, gender-related jokes, and occasional teasing" are not enough

  4. St. Mary's Honor Ctr. v. Hicks

    509 U.S. 502 (1993)   Cited 12,419 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a trier of fact may infer discrimination upon rejecting an employer's proffered reason for termination

  5. Tex. Dept. of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine

    450 U.S. 248 (1981)   Cited 20,265 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding in the Title VII context that the plaintiff's prima facie case creates "a legally mandatory, rebuttable presumption" that shifts the burden of proof to the employer, and "if the employer is silent in the face of the presumption, the court must enter judgment for the plaintiff"

  6. Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Servs., Inc.

    523 U.S. 75 (1998)   Cited 5,321 times   50 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[w]hatever evidentiary route the plaintiff chooses to follow, he or she must always prove that the conduct at issue was not merely tinged with offensive . . . connotations"

  7. Henson v. City of Dundee

    682 F.2d 897 (11th Cir. 1982)   Cited 983 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that where a supervisor makes sexual overtures to employees of both genders, or where the conduct is equally offensive to male and female workers, the conduct may be actionable under state law, but it is not actionable as harassment under Title VII because men and women are accorded like treatment